The Constitution & The Judicial BranchDiscuss Supreme Court Punts on Texas Affirmative-Action Case at the Political Forums; Capping a year of suspense with a surprise anticlimax, the Supreme Court Monday sidestepped a sweeping ruling on affirmative action ...

Capping a year of suspense with a surprise anticlimax, the Supreme Court Monday sidestepped a sweeping ruling on affirmative action and instead directed lower courts to re-examine whether a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin should survive constitutional scrutiny.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion reflected a broad consensus across the court's ideological spectrum, from Justice Clarence Thomas to Justice Sonia Sotomayor—both of whom say affirmative action brought them to Yale Law School, but today take opposite positions on whether universities should grant preferences to underrepresented minorities.

Both sides took solace in the 7-1 ruling. Justice Elena Kagan, who as solicitor general participated in the Obama administration's defense of affirmative action, sat out. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the UT plan passed muster and shouldn't be returned to the lower courts for additional review.

First big case at the end of the SC session for the year and they punt it back to a lower court.

You know, when I first read about the decision my inclination (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) was that they punted. And that was my thought process because generally, when the Court is facing a legal question with crazy political implications, they try to punt.

Out of principles of judicial restraint as well as separation and stratification of powers they generally try to address the most narrow legal question being asked unless they're not likely to see the case again because of other factors (such as case that normally escapes Supreme Court review due to ripeness or mootness).

This case rested on a fact intensive question and the Supreme Court, from what I read, felt that there wasn't sufficient review of the facts by the District Court. Which is probably true considering that the District Court decision (and again, correct me if I'm wrong, I've not been following this case super closely as I have others) was a summary judgment and a summary judgment is a face value analysis unlike a trial.

SCOTUS told the District Court to use strict scrutiny and examine the full measure of facts, that they couldn't use summary judgment on the facts in this case... or at least not how they did.

And it's a 7-1 decision. So that's pretty much the entire court saying there are issues with the District Court. It's my understanding that Ginsberg was of the opinion that the Court could made a decision with the facts presented and the Supreme Court could review that record and make a decision.

And that's really a judgment call based upon the total facts in the case.

I tend to think they got it right even though it seems like a punt.

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

You get the respect you give. And if you're a Republican, you b*tch about paybacks being a b*tch. So sorry you're mad your guy is getting the respect you gave ours, Snowflakes.

First big case at the end of the SC session for the year and they punt it back to a lower court.

I have a solution for schools and the military. Why don't minorities help to write those entrance tests with a little sub culture in mind?
I remember thinking about the air force and taking the test. I made a decent score but I do remember sh*t that was foreign to me, a fairly bright and well read kid at the time. Baseball stat history, and stuff like that was on there. How about we throw in some Sojourner truth quotes, some Clara Barton history...? Then our kids would have to be BETTER educated to pass not Less educated.
Just a thought.

You know, when I first read about the decision my inclination (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) was that they punted. And that was my thought process because generally, when the Court is facing a legal question with crazy political implications, they try to punt.

Out of principles of judicial restraint as well as separation and stratification of powers they generally try to address the most narrow legal question being asked unless they're not likely to see the case again because of other factors (such as case that normally escapes Supreme Court review due to ripeness or mootness).

This case rested on a fact intensive question and the Supreme Court, from what I read, felt that there wasn't sufficient review of the facts by the District Court. Which is probably true considering that the District Court decision (and again, correct me if I'm wrong, I've not been following this case super closely as I have others) was a summary judgment and a summary judgment is a face value analysis unlike a trial.

SCOTUS told the District Court to use strict scrutiny and examine the full measure of facts, that they couldn't use summary judgment on the facts in this case... or at least not how they did.

And it's a 7-1 decision. So that's pretty much the entire court saying there are issues with the District Court. It's my understanding that Ginsberg was of the opinion that the Court could made a decision with the facts presented and the Supreme Court could review that record and make a decision.

And that's really a judgment call based upon the total facts in the case.

I tend to think they got it right even though it seems like a punt.

Well, I expect the SC to do much the same with the gay rights cases before them too. Whatever the ruling it will not be what people are expecting and will leave much of the cases up in the air. It will just mean that there will be more lawsuits to clog the court.

__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Well, I expect the SC to do much the same with the gay rights cases before them too. Whatever the ruling it will not be what people are expecting and will leave much of the cases up in the air. It will just mean that there will be more lawsuits to clog the court.

Naw, they will let the judicial usurpation of the Proposition 8 vote stand inviting additional judicial assaults on the definition of marriage in the service of a special interest group. if they took a stand for the People and their elected representatives to decide the issue of marriage it might lead to questioning of judicial supremacy on other issues. Can't have that.

Well, I expect the SC to do much the same with the gay rights cases before them too. Whatever the ruling it will not be what people are expecting and will leave much of the cases up in the air. It will just mean that there will be more lawsuits to clog the court.

I think you're right. And that's what the conventional wisdom is as well. The expectation is for the court to decide Prop 8 on standing grounds alone, not getting to the merits of the actual Prop 8 decision. The effect of which is expected to be that the Appellate decision stands (because the Supreme Court doesn't address it) and Prop 8 is overturned and gay marriage is legal in California ONLY.

It's much harder to punt in the DOMA case. AND, the Court SOUNDED less interested in punting in the DOMA case. It will probably be narrow and only to FEDERAL recognition. And the expectation is that they will find that the FEDERAL definition must tack with the state for benefits.

I don't know... We've seen conventional wisdom fail plenty of times. We will know tomorrow morning.

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

You get the respect you give. And if you're a Republican, you b*tch about paybacks being a b*tch. So sorry you're mad your guy is getting the respect you gave ours, Snowflakes.

I think you're right. And that's what the conventional wisdom is as well. The expectation is for the court to decide Prop 8 on standing grounds alone, not getting to the merits of the actual Prop 8 decision. The effect of which is expected to be that the Appellate decision stands (because the Supreme Court doesn't address it) and Prop 8 is overturned and gay marriage is legal in California ONLY.

It's much harder to punt in the DOMA case. AND, the Court SOUNDED less interested in punting in the DOMA case. It will probably be narrow and only to FEDERAL recognition. And the expectation is that they will find that the FEDERAL definition must tack with the state for benefits.

I don't know... We've seen conventional wisdom fail plenty of times. We will know tomorrow morning.

I think you are right that they will punt on Prop 8 which amounts to a de facto endorsement of judge Walkers decision. Expect a flood of Federal lawsuits to have judges rewrite the laws in the states that don't allow gay marriage. Who needs elections or referendums when persuading a Federal judge is all you need.

I think you are right that they will punt on Prop 8 which amounts to a de facto endorsement of judge Walkers decision. Expect a flood of Federal lawsuits to have judges rewrite the laws in the states that don't allow gay marriage. Who needs elections or referendums when persuading a Federal judge is all you need.

You don't want the Federal Constitution to apply? Well then tough ****... Amend it...

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

You get the respect you give. And if you're a Republican, you b*tch about paybacks being a b*tch. So sorry you're mad your guy is getting the respect you gave ours, Snowflakes.

You don't want the Federal Constitution to apply? Well then tough ****... Amend it...

That is good advice for judiciary, it is a pity they don't follow it but instead presume to find new rights such as the right to marriage in the Constitution. The Constitution opens with "We the People" but to the modern judicial tyrant the People are subservient to their political or personal desires. You show it yourself with the Justice Kennedy quote where he assumes the role of special master catering to the "needs" of children in homosexual households and the Ginsberg quote where she presumes to redefine marriage according to how she wants the law to read.

That is good advice for judiciary, it is a pity they don't follow it but instead presume to find new rights such as the right to marriage in the Constitution. The Constitution opens with "We the People" but to the modern judicial tyrant the People are subservient to their political or personal desires. You show it yourself with the Justice Kennedy quote where he assumes the role of special master catering to the "needs" of children in homosexual households and the Ginsberg quote where she presumes to redefine marriage according to how she wants the law to read.

Where is the right to ammo in the Constitution? Oh that's right... there is none. So the state governments could full out end the sale of ammunition and that would be fine in your book.

You see tyrants because you don't like the decisions, not because the decisions aren't right.

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

You get the respect you give. And if you're a Republican, you b*tch about paybacks being a b*tch. So sorry you're mad your guy is getting the respect you gave ours, Snowflakes.